Russian Journalism in a New Era

Permissions: This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact mpub-help@umich.edu for more information.

It is common knowledge that American and Russian schools
of journalism differ widely in conceptual approaches, traditions, styles
and formats of news stories. During the Cold War, these different approaches
to news coverage, considered to be antipodes, were seen in terms of a
conflict of ideologies. True, to some extent that gap started to shrink
quite rapidly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, such that many optimists
reached the conclusion that the two societies would reach a kind of gradual
information convergence. Indeed, the emergence of numerous new Russian
wire services, papers, magazines, radio and TV stations with their strong
news orientation seemed to confirm this theory. But as time has passed
and the process has unfolded, it has become more obvious that the American
and Russian streams of news presentation will not achieve the anticipated
uniformity very soon.

There are many reasons and explanations for this present
state of affairs. One of the most vivid differences lies in the amount
of space given to international news. In Russia it still remains very
high, although some trends suggest that the Russian media are concentrating
more and more on internal issues. Such a broad informational outlook,
while very rare in the United States, is natural and common in the European
context. The history and geography of our part of the world has compelled
its inhabitants to constantly look beyond their immediate neighborhood
and inquire into small details and shades of opinion that at first glance
may seem insignificant. The relative isolation and remoteness of the United
States allows its population to be rather indifferent to the tiny nuances
and intrigues that seem so overcomplicated and so far away from its day-to-day
life. Perhaps for this reason American reporters routinely have to stress
the precise location of the sites from which their news stories are being
delivered.

Another significant difference between American and Russian
journalism is the extent to which an editor will permit the expression
of a writer's personal opinion. It is considered in bad taste and
evidence of a lack of training for a reporter to impose her or his views
on the audience in the U.S. and other democratic countries, where individual
sovereignty, seen as encompassing intellectual independence, is valued
most of all. Yet for the sake of fairness, we need to admit that such
an attitude was not always evident in practice. First of all, American
newspapers were commonly owned by one person who usually assumed editorial
responsibility, and they were widely regarded as the media of educated
and well-informed opinion about events in the surrounding world, provided
to busy people preoccupied with their own problems. The educational function
of the press was perceived to be as important as its informational aspect,
and open debates were common. In the Russian press, the presentations
of personal comments, evaluations, and remarks of reporters are still
a common practice. Although some news services have taken the completely
opposite approach, aiming for an objective account of events, this trend
has not become dominant. Some advocates of so-called literary journalism
have actually strengthened their positions against those who became adept
at a laconic "news-only" style. This literary kind of writing is
fostered by a long-practiced and cherished tradition of Aesopian language-the
use of a hidden and sometimes explosive message embedded in a context
that seems perfectly innocent and politically acceptable.

A third difference between Russian and American journalism
concerns training and specialization. A reporter in the United States
is typically considered to possess universal competence, implying that
he or she can cover local news or entertainment, legal affairs or the
economy, more or less successfully depending on the particular assignment.
Russian journalists, on the other hand, confine themselves to a major
area of expertise, which they choose early in their careers. Their training
is thus quite extensive and within a rather narrow area of application,
as opposed to the American standards by which reporters are usually armed
with broader and more theoretical schemas. This advantage enables American
colleagues to migrate from one subject of coverage to another and to adapt
quite easily to the stylistic norms of their new beat. By contrast, Russians
often demonstrate scholarly knowledge of their field, and it is not unusual
for them to possess various relevent academic degrees.

I realize that generalizing in this way is dangerous because
of the rapidly changing conditions in contemporary Russian journalism.
Today, the government is not the sole owner and publisher of the media,
as it used to be in the Soviet period, and intense competition impels
reporters and editors to be the first to market their stories, sometimes
leading to inaccurate or incorrect news presentations. As there is no
longer the need to wait for somebody "up there" to approve information
to be published, Russian news services have become more liberal and adept
in competing with their foreign counterparts in breaking the story first.
This seems so natural now that reminiscences of the state of affairs existing
only five years ago provoke little more than a smile. At that time, in
order to incorporate facts in their stories as direct quotes, Russian
reportersout of concern for the credibility of their reports or even for
their personal securityneeded to wait for days for the New York Times
or other respectable media to publish it first. Sometimes the delay was
so frustrating that impatient journalists would "leak" tips to their
slower and less informed Western colleagues.

Several years ago Soviet journalism was justly criticized
for a lack of diversity of views and the suppression of alternative opinions
in the press. Today, those Russian newspaper readers who are interested
can benefit from a great variety of opinions and an occasionally unrestrained
freedom of the press that far exceeds the limits accepted here in the
United States. This has led recently to the reproach from the West that
the Russian press remains tendentious and biased. While this argument
is largely valid, I would like to point out that this malady, although
unacceptable, has a certain logic which can be explained and which, in
any case, is not entirely alien to American journalism. Indeed, similar
conditions and situations exist in the U.S. media and, though admitted
by many American journalists in intimate professional circles, do not
get much publicity in this country. Why this is soand the consequences
of itis a point that merits speculation. For example, there was not much
diversity of coverage in the American media during the Gulf War or after
the invasion of Haiti. Some would argue that there was vigorous debate
before those actions took place and that once the decision was made national
resolve and accord were essential. This, however, still begs the question:
was the press manipulated during these events? Some complaints, voiced
in muted tones, would confirm such fears.

There seems to be another problem in the influence of American
media has with regard to regions remote from the U.S., for which coverage
often paints a distorted picture in the minds of an audience. Often the
audience is susceptible to stereotypes embedded in stories that often
do not pay sufficient attention to the dominant values of the region or
country featured in the report. As a result alien beliefs are easily construed
as hostile or even abhorrent. At times one notes a kind of facile equation
of the unfamiliar with the dangerous, an equation which then may have
a deleterious influence on political decision making. Recurrent, mainstream
antagonistic attitudes that have formed toward Islam and Muslim fundamentalism
in the Middle East seem to be a case in point. In contrast, I believe
Russian mass media have on the whole managed to escape this problem by
virtue of the academic background of those reporting on these issues,
as well as the long history of Muslim peoples living inside the country.

Differences between the traditions of Russian and American
journalism do exist; I hope I have suggested however that they are not
entirely what they are commonly imagined to be. Whether it is possible
or necessary to achieve a kind of uniformity in style of news coverage
remains an open question. However, in light of the very different historical
and social realities of the respective societies, the more interesting
question may be if, for the time being, this is entirely desirable.

Sergei Danilochkin is a Michigan Journalism Fellow
and most recently a journalist for the newspaper Rossiia, in Moscow.